Women and guns

So, this article got my attention yesterday via gunpundit. Seems some folks in downtown Nashville (NC) have their pretty panties all in a twist because a gun shop, Nashville Guns, features posters of women with guns. My first thought was that some woman was all butthurt because the store had images of scantily clad women prancing around with some firepower. And, well, frankly that causes some women to rekindle their inner feminism about degradation toward women. But I clicked the news article and, well, it wasn’t that at all.I shot Aunt B., my token feminist, an email about it too and her response is quite interesting because it’s similar to my initial reaction:

But the “controversial” poster isn’t a picture of a scantily clad woman who wants to be my future girlfriend. It’s a woman in a camouflage tank top and a long skirt, looking not like “Ooo, buy this gun and I will think you’re a bad ass,” but “Buy this gun and be as big a bad ass as I am.” … I think that poster is directed at women, trying to make us imagine ourselves as buyers of (expensive) guns.

Yes. A confident and armed woman. And this has people upset about both first and second amendment rights. The gun shop is compared to a bar, which I find odd. And some woman doesn’t think a gun shop (posters or not) or a bar belong in down town. The woman also brings up that the gun shop is across the street from a domestic violence shelter. Frankly, that seems like a good place for a gun shop to me. But Aunt B. brings up another excellent point that I hadn’t thought of:

Did you catch that? White says the gun story (sic) is located across from a domestic violence shelter. Now, I know, your first thought is “Oh my god, but couldn’t an abusive spouse get drunk, buy a gun, and shoot the abused spouse at the shelter?!” But take a step back from that just a second.

What kind of person reveals the location of a domestic violence shelter in order to “protect” women?

The story she links to outs where a battered women’s shelter is and that, my friends, in unacceptable. It’s late in the story, but it doesn’t matter. The information in the piece is blatant irresponsibility and willfully ignorant regarding battered women in crisis. The newspaper should not have put that in the story. Battered women’s shelters are at undisclosed, confidential locations for a reason.

1. One complaint and the town manager personally goes to check this out? Now that’s responsive government!

2. Take a moment to read the readers comments! Holy moly is there some nasty stuff in there. There are “Suggest removal” buttons by every comment, so I can’t imagine why some of this stuff is still up. Comments with the “n-word” and about men’s wives pulling trains. Yow.

I don’t think they should have disclosed the location of the shelter….but hopefully any abusive spouses will think twice about trying anything.

While I doubt the shelter would call the store instead of the police, anything taking place in the street or outside the shelter would probably attract attention inside the gun store. Probably not what the abusive spouse really wants.

I’m all for women being empowered through carefully honed skills and posession of a firearm. The photo doesn’t affend me in the least. That’s quite the controversy though with the disclosure of the women’s shelter. Way to go, lady.

“Jouralists” are odd creatures. They’ve never let confidential information, nay, even state secrets, get in the way of a hot story. See ‘The Pentagon Papers’ as an example. It’s the People’s Right to Know! Women’s shelter inadvertenly outed? Couldn’t be helped- it’s across from a Merchant of Death, and we have to let People Know, because any madman/lunatic/enraged husband/schoolchild/puppy dog/strawman could walk in and buy an Instrument of Mayhem and immediately Pose a Threat to Everyone! Especially Battered Women!

oh noes!

It’s an agenda. Someone’s always fishing for the Pullet Surprise, if not scaring the proletariat.

On a second note, I can’t say I’ve met that many ‘feminists’ I’d have connubial relations with using my brother-in-law’s wedding tackle.

Welcome to the future. One phone call can start a hissy fit. Direct Democracy is a very bad idea. The Town Manger should be replaced forth-wit. Sometimes town leaders have to remind people of the Constitution. Just say no to stupid people and save a lot of time and frustration.

Too many offended people with too much time. A transplanted Yankee liberal?

Unlike with car ads, I really can’t picture any guy looking at a picture of a beautiful woman with a gun and thinking “if I buy that one, women like that will want me”.

Men like pictures of pretty women, and gunnies also like pictures of beautiful guns. It only makes sense that we’d really like pictures that let us see both in the same image. Granted, it’s even better when it’s a pretty woman that looks like she actually knows how to handle the gun.

her eyou have a reporter that has to earn his keep. When you live in a boring place like Nashville that lacks the murder rate and corruption of Memphis, reporters need to drum up controversy to prevent themselves from being laid off.

Further, this is really just ugly feminist hating on pretty girls (who, because they are pretty have no mind of their own and were manipulated into taking those pictures ). FWIW, some of the craftiest self empowered women I know have worked in porn and as strippers. If this was a middle aged unattractive women, there would be nothing to report other than a bad marketing decision.

Can we really blame White for divulging the location of a women’s shelter? From the article, she divulged it in an e-mail to a Commissioner — so who divulged it to the newspaper? The Commissioner or White?

That kind of looks like Oleg’s work but he said it’s not. He did however ask the question if the people complaining would also do so if it were a picture of an Asian, African American, Indian or any other human.

Markie Marxist sez: “It’s a private enterprise using pretty women to market guns! We can’t allow that! It might be successful! Besides, it contradicts our Marxist aesthetics, which hold that ugly is beautiful. Once we nationalize the gun stores, we can have a rule: no women under two hundred pounds or under forty-years old on the gun posters, and no more than one poster with a woman on it either! Of course, most of the posters will be required by law, provided by ATF, and feature sad-looking men behind bars for violating gun laws. That should set the correct tone.”